[Leica] Re: Emperor's new clothes...

[Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>]

My wife Jennie and I have been to many many photography exhibits, showings,
galleries, etc. I have to say that it is rare that the work on exhibit is
worth looking at. To the point that we don't go anymore. There are a few
photographic galleries on our beaten path that are always worth visiting.
There are many that are never worth visiting.

I don't have a clue as to what makes these folks tick. It's the equivalent
of "spill some paint on a canvas and call it art." Somehow they seem to
convince somebody, somewhere, that their stuff is good.

Please excuse my naming names, but to me, one of the worst offenders in
producing photographic garbage, is Joe Marvullo. One time I got captured in
one of his shows, and was nearly sick before I could get out.

I apologize to anyone out there that really likes his stuff. There are
reasons over and above exceedingly poor photographic craft, that make Joe's
work unpalatable for me.

Every once in awhile, all of the vibes line up  to produce a unified force.
Too bad it is not pointing to goodness. And yes, there are others that are
minimal in technique but maximal in ego. We have already discussed them so
I won't resurrect their names.

Some of the worst photography that I have seen has been at the Weston
Gallery in Carmel and at the Ansel Adams Gallery when it was at the Sunset
Center in Carmel. Not AA's or Weston's work, but emerging "artists."

Help me, Rhonda, help, help me Rhonda.
Help me Rhonda, yeah,  get them outta my sight!

Jim


At 11:45 PM 2/14/00 +0100, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>I spent the weekend in Denmark, and visited the Museum of Photography in
>Odense Sunday afternoon. In addition to their excellent permanent
>collection they had an exhibit by a photographer named Eggleton (I
>think). He is supposed to be one of the greats. His CV listed a long
>string of exhibitions and prizes (and incidentally, his first Leica
>purchase in 1958), most recently the 1998 Hasselblad Prize. Seldom have
>I been so disappointed by a photography exhibit. I did not see a single
>picture that I would even bother printing. Most of the pictures were of
>non-descript scenes, mostly from the Southern U.S. and mostly devoid of
>people. The exhibit was accompanied by some learned writeups explaining
>how the topics were trivial but the photographs very deep, but I guess I
>am just to plain and uneducated to "get it". I do appreciate
>photographic craft even when the subject matter is not my cup of tea (as
>in Mapplethorpe's homoerotic images), but here even this aspect was
>missing, with many shaken pictures, crooked horizons, botched
>compositions etc.
>
>Not looking for any responses per se, just had to vent...
>
>Nathan